Universe Race

Some of what you said is right. I will follow your sentences with what the big bang theory actually says. The Big Bang was an expansion that happened to the universe. There is an expansion of the universe which has been occuring for at least 13.7 billion years. It did not create the universe because, as far back as we can model, the universe was already there. The expansion has been occuring for 13.7 billion years. What occured before that is unknown because GR produces a singularity and hence breaks down. The Big Bang says nothing about what preceded it, so its predictions can not be dated relative to some "moment of creation". Far higher than that. Up to quintillions of degrees Kelvin. 10,000 times less dense than that.I am assuming that by saying "density was" or "temperture was", that you are referring to times we can describe, like the elctroweak epoch.Edited by Son Goku, : Clarification of last two sentences.

...The Big Bang describes the expansion of the Universe. "In" is not a meaningful word in this case. Absolutely false. There is nothing in the scientific model that says the Unvierse was "created." The 3 physical dimensions rapidly expanded from an extremely "small" space to what we see today, and are currently still expanding. There was no point where the Universe did not exist. False. Singularities are not objects. Physics equations reach a singularity at T=0, which means only that the math breaks down and stops making sense. When we say there isa singularity at T=0, we mean "when the Universe is under these conditions, we don't know how to describe it any more. We curently don't know what the state of teh Universe was with any certainty at exactly T=0. Our knowledge begins a fraction of a second later." After T=0, basically yes. But again, "creation" is not an accurate word. Not an accurate number by any stretch. The energy density of the Universe increases as you approach T=0 becasue there simply wasn't any space for it to spread out in. Temperatures rise accordingly, to the point where quarks and gluons can't even hold still long enough to form baryonic matter. False. Desnity increases as you approach T=0, but the density of "nuclear matter" is irrelevant. One of the reasons we have a singularity at T=0 is becasue density approaches the infinite at that point. Protons and neutrons and such aren't even dense enough to describe what we're talking about, so "nuclear matter" doesn't make sense. No. ICANT, you've added a few irrelevant numbers to your concept (numbers you have not been given by Son Goku, Cavediver, or myself), but otherwise we are still very much at square one. Rather than clearing up your misconceptions of the Big Bang model, you've actually managed to add more.If this was a physics class and you managed to add misconceptiopns after the level of patient repeated explanation given to you in this thread, you wouldn't even fail - you'd be asked to leave the physics department and never come back.

Hi Son, GR says there was a singularity at T=O.Hawking's no boundry theory says there was a universe there. No singularity required just a self-contained universe in imaginary time.If we are talking about a singularity, what activated the singularity to create time, for the universe, space, and matter to exist in?If there was no time the universe could not expand.If we are talking about a minature universe in imaginary time what caused it to activate and create real time that it could exist in and expand?Time does not exist until it is created. The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404) Is this agreement that a singularity was at T=O? Is this agreement that The Big Bang trys to describe what happened from 0.0001 (or there abouts) until today. What would be the density at singularity?
What could cause such density? I was talking about at singularity T=O.
I don't think we have any way of knowing other than by making an assumption.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

The singularity isn't real, it is a mathematical artefact due to the break down of GR. It wasn't physically activated because it is not real. This has been stated several times. Before this point, GR produces a singularity. However it isn't real. It's existence is not a prediction of the Big Bang theory. It describes from a period when the electroweak force existed 13.7 billion years ago to today. The singularity isn't real, it comes about as a breakdown in the mathematics. We have no way of knowing, because the singularity is not real.Please, for the sake of my sanity, do not ask questions in the next post which assume the singularity is a real physical object.

Hey, SG, here's a clip from post 12 in the previous thread, now some 570 posts ago... 570 post later, if ICANT hasn't taken the hint by now, I'm not sure you've enough time before heat death to successfully get the point across.

Hi Son, GR says there was a singularity at T=O. You say that singularity is not real. That leaves an absence of anything at T=O.Unless we go to Hawking's self contained minature universe in imaginary time.So what created real time so this self contained minature universe that was located in imaginary time could expand?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

No, it leads to an absence of a statement or any kind of prediction about T=0. The Big Bang theory doesn't says anything about what went on then. It certainly doesn't say there was an absence of anything.The singularity is the mathematical equivalent of "I don't know what is going on here".
"I don't know what is going on here" is in no way equivalent to "I know what was going on here, there was nothing".

How do you define real?If something is not physical, is it real?

No, it does not.I'll repeat that.The fact that singularities are not physical objects does not mean that the Universe "came from an absence of anything." You still don't understand. A singularity is a mathematical artifact - like I've said before, this amounts to a mathematical signpost that says "the equations we're using can't describe this." That's all it is.The Universe exists at T=0, just in a form we can't currently describe. We can describe it a fraction of a second later, and from then until now. Imaginary time is a descriptor for an extra dimension outside of the 4 we experience. Nothing "created" time any more than anything "created" length.You should try to understand what cavediver, Son Goku, and I are telling you about Big Bang cosmology before you even attempt to fathom what Hawking is saying. You're trying to multiply before you know addition.

I don't know where you're going with these questions, but let me interject that your ideas about quantum uncertainty would be off-topic in this thread.No replies to this message, please.Edited by Admin, : Add closing note.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Hi Son, OK we have established that there definitely was something at T=O.Did this something exist in time and space?If not where did it exist?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

"Something" would be "the Universe. In its entirety. Simply in a different form from the way it exists today." This something is time and space, and all that they contain. Inapplicable question, since the Universe does exist at T=0, simply in a different form from what we see today.We wouldn't be having this conversation had you understood the globe analogy. I note that you completely ignored my last post on that subject, latching instead on the opportunity to continue to repeat yourself.

Hi Rahvin, T=O = Time does not exist here.If there is no time how can the universe exist here?The universe does exist in time doesn't it?God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

No, we have not.Using the equations of General Relativity produces a singularity at t=0, meaning that the equations of General Relativity do not work at t=0. Hence we really know nothing at all about t=0.In fact, we already know that General Relativity does not work before t=10^-40 (Son Goku, correct me if I'm wrong here). Therefore, we really know very little about what is going on before t=10^-40. For all we know the "true beginning" may have been at the time GR gives as 10^-75. Or maybe the "true beginning" of the universe occurs way earlier than the time that GR produces a singularity.Maybe, just maybe, the universe extends infinitely far into the past. Or maybe time itself will cease to have any real meaning whatsoever in the new theory that replaces GR for describing this era, so talking about "before" or "after" becomes meaningless.No one can really say much about anything at all about the universe before t=10^-40.Added by edit:Or cavediver! I see cavediver is logged in. Maybe cavediver can correct my errors!Edited by Chiroptera, : typo -- dpurious character in exponentEdited by Chiroptera, : More typos. Fat lot of good preview does me.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

Incorrect. No time has passed yet. The dimension we call time exists. Time is a property of the Universe, just like the other three dimensions, or the laws of physics.To bring back the globe analogy that you enjoy ignoring, T=0 is the exact point of the North Pole. The longitude lines represent all matter, and the surface of the globe represents the 3 physical dimensions. Moving South represents the passage of time.At T=0, all of the matter is essencially in the same place, the physical domensions are approaching infinitely smaller than they are at the equator, but everything still exists.We have no idea what state it was in because our math breaks down into a singularity at that point. Beyond this, we really can't say anything with any degree of certainty regarding T=0.But from a very small fraction of a second after T=0, we know the state of the Universe fairly well. As time increases, the spacial dimensions expand. There does not need to be a "cause" for this expansion, it's simply a consequence of the shape of the Universe as a 4-dimensional entity, and our experience of that shape as we move through one of those dimensions in a single direction.We see and understand what you're doing, ICANT. You're trying to justify the conclusion that Genesis 1:1 matches up with Big bang cosmology, or failing that, try to attack the current model. But the current model neither supports nor contradicts (in the strictest sense, anyway) Genesis 1:1. You're perfectly welcome to believe that your god "caused" everything we've been talking about for the past two threads, so long as you understand that this isn't suggested in any way by the science.We've been trying to approach this subject as a learning experience. I've certainly learned a great deal from Son and cavediver as we've discussed this. But you're still not approaching it the same way. You don't seem to be willing to try to understand the Big Bang model, instead preferring to parrot away your "it came from the singularity" or "in an absence of anything" nonsense when you've been told this is wrong repeatedly.Please, ICANT, stop repeating yourself and try to understand. Or at least come up with something new so that cavediver and Son can explain another facet of cosmology to the rest of us.